Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-07-2015, 04:59 PM   #106
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
My understanding of diffraction was that it just decreased the amount of detail a lens resolves. So that at f22, you may only get the equivalent of 6 megapixels worth of detail out of a full frame image -- however many megapixels the sensor is that you are shooting with (I just made up that number, just to be clear). Meaning that if you shoot at f22, extra megapixels are wasted. It isn't that you get less detail shooting on a higher megapixel sensor when you are stopped down that much, it is just that the softening is a lot clearer when you zoom in on a super-stopped down 36 megapixel image than on a similarly stopped down 12 megapixel image.

07-07-2015, 05:23 PM   #107
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,651
QuoteQuote:
for the same color and DOF, the Airy Disk spans the same proportion of all sensors, and thus the effect of diffraction softening is the same for all systems at the same DOF."
If the pixels are smaller each one occupies less proportion of the sensor and the effect is to make the Airy disk, in terms of pixels size larger. The above statement makes sense if and only if, the pixels occupy the same proportion of the sensor. So, I'm not saying the statement is wrong, I'm saying it doesn't mean what you think it means. IN fact, I would have been happy to quote it in my own argument. Reduce the pixel size and the pixel peeping resolution will suffer with the smaller pixels, although reduce both to 1080 they should look about the same. Crop them both to 1080 and you'll see a difference.
07-07-2015, 08:08 PM   #108
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,400
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Reduce the pixel size and the pixel peeping resolution will suffer with the smaller pixels, although reduce both to 1080 they should look about the same. Crop them both to 1080 and you'll see a difference.
Hang on, are you saying that if you reduce both images to the same viewing size that the effect of diffraction (and let's throw motion blur in here as well) will be the same on images from two sensors with different pixel sizes (assuming everything else equal, including sensor size)? And that if you look at 100% crops, the effect of diffraction (or motion blur) is more noticeable with the smaller pixel sensor?

I hope not, because this is exactly the same thing the guy on Nikon Rumors was saying and you lambasted him for it. He's just taking the stand "pixel size makes no difference here" under the very reasonable (and explicitly stated!) assumption of the same print size and even pointed out what happens if you view at 100% on screen.

I can't help but think that, yet again, everyone is on the same page but arguing past one another as they're standing in slightly different locations. It might be worth looking at the diffraction limit calculator here Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks, and especially take note of the 'note' below the calculator about print vs 100% screen views. Just take a moment to consider the different viewpoints if you're leaning towards 100% views or fixed print sizes for your comparisons.
07-08-2015, 07:45 AM - 2 Likes   #109
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,064
I've finaly worked out the equivalence/FOV thing.......comes to 42 Pigeons.....


Spot the Starling.jpg
by Noel Leahy, on Flickr


Last edited by noelpolar; 07-08-2015 at 04:03 PM.
07-08-2015, 11:37 AM   #110
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,772
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
I've finaly worked out the equivalence/FOV thing.......comes to 40 Pigeons.....


Spot the Starling.jpg
by Noel Leahy, on Flickr
Unless you are taking many birds, that brings me to why I do not see FF improving the bird photos I take most right now. With a K3, for any wild bird smaller than a fat pigeon, with a 400mm-500mm lens, I am lucky if I have used the area of more than a 1" sensor after cropping. Even with a long lens, it is hard to get close enough to use the full APS-C crop on anything smaller than a good-sized duck.
07-08-2015, 12:46 PM   #111
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,678
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
Want, yes. Able to afford, not so much. In reality I'd need to sell everything in my Profile page other than the 3 Princesses to own the FF and the two standard f/2.8 zooms.

And what would be the point of that?
Don't have to buy those zooms

Yet.
07-14-2015, 04:22 AM - 1 Like   #112
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 31,513
QuoteOriginally posted by slip Quote
how will FF improve your photography?
Better bragging rights.
07-14-2015, 05:00 AM - 1 Like   #113
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,867
The numerous threads of the same vein on the FF section reminds me of a guy, waiting for his childhood love since forever, and when they finally meet again, he does an about turn and tells her she already old.


Before we had any real info on FF (how many years is that already?), the doomsayers came, claiming the apocalypse.

Now that the FF is at its most likely to be real, we have all sorts of reverse arguments taking over this FF (pseudo ) section.



Why not just start putting aside a $200, or $300 a month for it already.

07-14-2015, 07:03 AM - 3 Likes   #114
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,738
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Why not just start putting aside a $200, or $300 a month for it already.
I've been saving for a Pentax FF so long, that I gave up and bought a house for the money instead.
07-14-2015, 07:14 AM - 1 Like   #115
Pentaxian
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote

Why not just start putting aside a $200, or $300 a month for it already.
I'm trying that but it doesn't work.....I get a couple of months into it then buy a K50 1.2..... start again an end up with a K85 1.8 then start again..... and end up ....... you get the idea. A real pentaxian wouldn't need to ask.....
07-14-2015, 07:23 AM   #116
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,651
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Hang on, are you saying that if you reduce both images to the same viewing size that the effect of diffraction (and let's throw motion blur in here as well) will be the same on images from two sensors with different pixel sizes (assuming everything else equal, including sensor size)? And that if you look at 100% crops, the effect of diffraction (or motion blur) is more noticeable with the smaller pixel sensor?
No... sorry if I'm too lazy to go back and figure out what caused this confusion. With both diffraction and CA (and purple fringing) the more pixels the aberration affect, the less macro-contrast the image will have. if one pixel if 5 units wide and one is 10, and the CA is measured at 7 units, the 5 unit pixel will show have a 1 pixel wide ca band around it, the 10 unit wild pixel will show not direct CA bands, macro-contrast will still be affected by the .4 unit overflow but there will not be a clear CA outline. One of the things that the CA propagandists did get right was, if you are shooting say a K-3 and D750, you can shoot with a less expensive lens on the D750, the K-3 will need a better lens. But then, most modern lenses are so good, it's unlikely you'd run into a scenario where the lens you put on your K-3 wasn't good enough.

And the other point is, on a well corrected prime with CA control under .4 pixels, and there are quite a few of those, the K-3 image is going to be so good, the D750 won't improve on it, because the CA doesn't become an issue until it's over 1 pixel wide.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kerrowdown Quote
Better bragging rights.
I'm already tired of people looking at my gear and drooling. I suspect they'll drool even more if I answer "yes" to the inevitable question, "Is that a full frame." Why does everyone think if you have a big mother ass lens it must be on a full frame? So is more drool a good thing or a bad thing? Personally I'd go with no drooling, just leave me alone, I'm working here.

Last edited by normhead; 07-14-2015 at 07:33 AM.
07-14-2015, 12:51 PM   #117
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10
How about this:

Owning a full-frame camera will not improve my photography. I still have to do that myself.
But using a 35mm full-frame camera allow me to take more pictures that I ended up liking. If this statement does not apply to you, then probably full-frame is not for you.

The type of photography that I do benefits from larger sensor/film size. If it were up to me, I'd be lugging a 8x10 camera everywhere, but that is neither practical nor affordable, so besides my film cameras, a full-frame digital is the closest that I can have to my ideal setup.
07-14-2015, 02:07 PM   #118
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 31,513
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
"Is that a full frame."
Strangely of all the questions I'm ever asked... that has never been one them.

Maybe because all my cameras are running de-badged (black gaffer tape) which stops most brand type conversations when I'm working.
07-14-2015, 06:42 PM   #119
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,651
QuoteOriginally posted by Kerrowdown Quote
Strangely of all the questions I'm ever asked... that has never been one them.

Maybe because all my cameras are running de-badged (black gaffer tape) which stops most brand type conversations when I'm working.
I work in a very touristy location. Many people bring good camera gear hoping for some wildlife images. Apparently tourists care about such things.

Did someone say something about Tony <cough bull s!&t cough> Northrup? I must have been dreaming, nah... couldn't have happened.

Last edited by normhead; 07-14-2015 at 06:52 PM.
07-14-2015, 07:47 PM   #120
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,400
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
No... sorry if I'm too lazy to go back and figure out what caused this confusion.
You don't have to go back far:

You had quoted:

QuoteQuote:
for the same color and DOF, the Airy Disk spans the same proportion of all sensors, and thus the effect of diffraction softening is the same for all systems at the same DOF."
and then replied:
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If the pixels are smaller each one occupies less proportion of the sensor and the effect is to make the Airy disk, in terms of pixels size larger. The above statement makes sense if and only if, the pixels occupy the same proportion of the sensor. So, I'm not saying the statement is wrong, I'm saying it doesn't mean what you think it means. IN fact, I would have been happy to quote it in my own argument. Reduce the pixel size and the pixel peeping resolution will suffer with the smaller pixels, although reduce both to 1080 they should look about the same. Crop them both to 1080 and you'll see a difference
Looks to me like you're saying if you view them at the same size (your example: 1080p I guess) that they look about the same regarding the effects of diffraction. But if you take a crop of 1080p out of both (i.e. view at 100% on screen), the one with the smaller pixels will suffer from diffraction more. This is exactly in line with what the Nikon Rumors fellow was saying. It's also what should be pretty obvious if you think about sensor to viewing size magnification.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
if one pixel if 5 units wide and one is 10, and the CA is measured at 7 units, the 5 unit pixel will show have a 1 pixel wide ca band around it, the 10 unit wild pixel will show not direct CA bands, macro-contrast will still be affected by the .4 unit overflow but there will not be a clear CA outline.
I don't understand any of this, it seems like you're saying the CA will be centered in the pixels and make perfect little bands around the pixels if the pixels are smaller than the CA? Do you have any links that explain what you're getting at here?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, cameras, control, count, diffraction, dof, f/2, ff, film, frame, frame sensors, full-frame, images, increase, lens, manufacturers, megapixel, observation, pentax, rock, sensor, sensors, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to improve your photographic creations pursang Photographic Technique 15 03-21-2015 10:39 PM
Night Trying to Learn Night Photography v3; How can I improve? Hexism Photo Critique 14 01-14-2015 08:19 PM
Ten household items that can improve your food photography interested_observer Photographic Technique 2 11-17-2013 06:07 PM
Thematic try it backward to improve your photography slip Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 2 08-26-2012 07:40 AM
Food How to improve my food photography? ddekadt Photo Critique 12 06-22-2012 08:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:31 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top